force its way to the conscience on occasion of
taking the last step in so sad an _exodus_ from the Jerusalem of his
fathers. Anger and irritation can do much to harden the obduracy of
any party conviction, especially whilst in the centre of fiery
partisans. But sorrow, in such a case, is a sentiment of deeper
vitality than anger; and this sorrow for the result will co-operate
with the original scruples on the casuistry of the questions, to
reproduce the demur and the struggle many times over, in consciences
of tender sensibility.

Exactly for men in this state of painful collision with their own
higher nature, is Lord Aberdeen's bill likely to furnish the bias
which can give rest to their agitations, and firmness to their
resolutions. The bill, according to some, is too early, and, according
to others, too late. Why too early? Because, say they, it makes
concessions to the church, which as yet are not proved to be called
for. These concessions travel on the very line pursued by the
seceders, and must give encouragement to that spirit of religious
movement which it has been found absolutely requisite to rebuke by
acts of the legislature. Why, on the other hand, is Lord Aberdeen's
bill too late? Because, three years ago, it would, or it might, have
prevented the secession. But is this true? Could this bill have
prevented the secession? We believe not. Lord Aberdeen, undoubtedly,
himself supposes that it might. But, granting that this were true,
whose fault is it that a three years' delay has intercepted so happy a
result? Lord Aberdeen assures us that the earlier success of the bill
was defeated entirely by the resistance of the Government at that
period, and chiefly by the personal resistance of Lord Melbourne. Let
that minister be held responsible, if any ground has been lost that
could have been peacefully pre-occupied against the schism. This,
however, seems to us a chimera. For what is it that the bill concedes?
Undoubtedly it restrains and modifies the right of patronage. It
grants a larger discretion to the ecclesiastical courts than had
formerly been exercised by the usage. Some contend, that in doing so
the bill absolutely alters the law as it stood heretofore, and ought,
therefore, to be viewed as enactory; whilst others maintain that is
simply a declaratory bill, not altering the law at all, but merely
expressing, in fuller or in clearer terms, what had always been law,
though silently departed from by the usa